While I'm fairly new, I would like to add into this discussion that in terms of Console First-Person Shooters (a distinction that needs to be made for reasons I'll get to later), the shooter element hasn't had a true leader for most of it's history. Previous generations (NES until say Genesis/SNES) were technologically inferior to home computers at that time, so having a First-Person Shooter was destined to be a failing effort. As the consoles bridged the gap, FPS games on consoles became more possible, though many of them were clunky and controls were imprecise. This is where Halo (the original) shined. As a console shooter, the controls in Halo were spot on. This combined with very good weapon balance, made Halo the first console shooter to truly put everything together (with respect to Goldeneye being wonderful, that N64 controller is a ***** to play with). In that respect, Halo pushed the envelope in console FPS games. The second game was quite a bit of the same, except it made use of the Xbox Live system to a degree that ensured it would lead the rest of the generation...which it did.
As for Halo 3, the multiplayer is without fail, the pinnacle of the generation thus far. Forge (while a novelty, and editing objects and spawns is amateurish, is still a first for the series and well done) and Saved Films is sending the multiplayer in a whole new direction. Basically, there are a number of things that the end user can do with those two things to ensure that the game never loses the fun appeal to them. In that respect, it is one of the best games out. It isn't without it's flaws, single player included, but all the same, the entire package needs to be judged, or you've done the idea of reviewing a disservice.
I did find it hilarious that through this thread, there's the one snobby guy saying things about Bioshock (shock horror, it's really good!), all the while throwing insults abound. The utter elitism of it is humorous to me.
If it's all the same, as long as the reviews are funny (which they most certainly are), I couldn't care less whether they bashed a game or praised it. I will say this, to review half a game, while simultaneously panning the part that was reviewed in Halo 3's case, yet to completely ignore the fact that Bioshock was released on the Xbox 360 (with a very large base for multiplayer) yet had no multiplayer offering at all...would you not consider it half a game then? If not, then why overlook that, yet shine a spotlight on Halo 3, even though you willingly ignored the multiplayer? Seems a bit off to me. I never did rely on reviews though, it's a sheep mentality that sees a review and rushes out to buy a game based solely on an arbitrary and completely subjective score.
